Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 06-3265
(D.C. No. 03-CV-3237-SAC)
(D . Kan.)
-2-
-3-
-4-
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
-5-
II
W e review de novo the district courts decision to dismiss a complaint
under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. Perkins v. Kan.
Dept of Corr., 165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir. 1999). Dismissal of a pro se
complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only where it is obvious that the
plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged and it would be futile to give
him an opportunity to amend. Curley v. Perry, 246 F.3d 1278, 1281 (10th Cir.
2001) (quotation omitted). In determining whether a dismissal is proper, we
must accept the allegations of the complaint as true and construe those
allegations, and any reasonable inferences that might be drawn from them, in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff. Gaines v. Stenseng, 292 F.3d 1222, 1224
(10th Cir. 2002); see also Kikumura v. Osagie, 461 F.3d 1269, 1294 (10th Cir.
2006) (stating that a prisoner is merely required to provide a short and plain
statement of his Eighth Amendment claims, and malice, intent, knowledge, and
other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally in the complaint)
(citations and alteration omitted).
-7-
A
W e agree with the district court that, even if liberally construed and
accepted as true, Beauclairs allegations regarding his medical and dental
complaints do not satisfy the subjective component of the deliberate indifference
standard. Rather, his allegations merely show a difference of opinion regarding
appropriate medical care or, at worst, negligence.
As Beauclair has conceded in his opening brief, he received the treatment
deemed appropriate by the medical staff of each of the facilities in which he was
detained. In Larned State Hospital he received treatment for his irritable bowel
syndrome, he was given a no stairs restriction, his meals w ere delivered to his
cell daily, and he was provided pain medication. At Shawnee County Jail his
medication regimen continued, he was given antibiotics and aspirin pending
removal of two teeth, and he was provided a knee brace. He continued to receive
medication during his confinement at RDU. The same course of treatments
continued at the H utchinson C orrectional Facility (HCF), where he also had tw o
teeth pulled and received pain medication. Beauclair claims that he received no
medical care during his confinement at Ellsworth Correctional Facility from
M arch 2003 to M ay 2003, but his allegations show that he was seen by a doctor in
April 2003. Finally, at Lansing Correctional Facility (LCF), Beauclair was
given medical shoes, and arch supp[or]ts and an egg crate pad for his bad
back/herniated disk. He was subsequently given knee braces, a cane, and
-9-
-10-
According to Beauclair, prison officials denied his grievance, finding that there
was no emergency and that the same matter had been previously grieved.
W hile prison officials have a duty to protect prisoners from violence at the
hands of other prisoners, Curley, 246 F.3d at 1282 (quotation omitted), this duty
requires only that prison officials not act with deliberate indifference to inmate
health or safety, id. (quotation omitted). As noted above, to show the requisite
deliberate indifference, plaintiff must establish that defendants knew he faced a
substantial risk of harm. K ikumura, 461 F.3d at 1293. As the Supreme Court
has explained, the [prison] official must both be aware of facts from which the
inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he
must also draw the inference. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. W e conclude that
Beauclairs allegations are insufficient to show such deliberate indifference. The
referenced grievance did not contain enough facts to support an inference that he
was facing a substantial risk of serious harm. Plaintiff has also failed to allege
sufficient facts to show that the prison officials acted with deliberate indifference
to his safety when they failed to implement the alleged M edical Restriction
[that] was done on 5-30-2002, by Dennis Goff, ARNP, requesting Beauclair be
placed in a One man cell due to medical problems of [irritable bowel
syndrome].
Finally, in his initial complaint, Beauclair also alleged that he received
deficient medical care for the injuries that he sustained in the assault. As w ith his
-11-
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-12-